boncer34
Formerly "Dos23"
So with 9-12 months rest he'll deteriorate from being number 1 and winning slams to no chance.
Makes sense.
Roger Federer is not the GOAT
- Thread starter Butcher32
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Makes sense.
Makes no difference, you can’t be is the GOAT conversation if you didn’t win 2 of the 4 majors.
boncer34
Formerly "Dos23"
Of course it does.
I don't think he's the GOAT but you can't point to a tournament he played once and claim him not winning it is a problem.
He clearly never won it because he almost never played it. Not because he didn't have the talent.
Where did I say he has no chance at winning a slam after 2020? Please refer to the post.
He has to win 4 to pass Federer. I've said he won't do it if 2020 is lost.
Borg played the US Open 9 times and never won it. No claim at being the GOAT if you haven't won 2 of the 4 slams.
boncer34
Formerly "Dos23"
Where did I say you said he couldn't win a slam? Please refer to the post.
So after 9-12 months off he'll go from being number 1 in the world and winning slams to no chance.
Makes sense.
If you're gonna troll make it at least half intelligent.
The poster made a valid point, how could borg be referred to as a goat if he hasn't won the aus and us open. Ok, he only played 1 aus open. However he played 9 US opens and never won it. The poster makes a very valid point, you dismiss them.
Djokovic is disadvantaged to get to 21 slams due to the 2020 season most likely being canned. That's quite obvious. He was looking like the best player in the world in January. How will that look in 2021, when he'll be turning 34 and still requiring 4 slams to pass Federer? My point yesterday was that djokovic won't pass Federer if 2020 is cancelled.
Why do you think that he still will be able to do it?
Last edited:
boncer34
Formerly "Dos23"
I never said Bjorg was the GOAT or should be in the conversation. But pointing to a tournament he never won due to not playing it isn't a good reason. As I explained. Before you tried to troll.
I got no idea how he'll look at 33 at the Australian open. I'm not the one making assurances one way or the other.
I guess we'll see if my claim holds true in roughly 3 years time.
boncer34
Formerly "Dos23"
Without crowds cheering so blatantly against him maybe Novak will become better?
Vdubs
Hall of Famer
These discussions are bizarre.
Clearly Federer IS, by definition of SLAMS, the GOAT right now. Until he is surpassed by Nadal or Djokovic.
If we are basing it on other factors, like class, style, contribution to the sport, world wide acclaim and recognition, then Federer wins hands down possibly for perpetuity.
Clearly Federer IS, by definition of SLAMS, the GOAT right now. Until he is surpassed by Nadal or Djokovic.
If we are basing it on other factors, like class, style, contribution to the sport, world wide acclaim and recognition, then Federer wins hands down possibly for perpetuity.
Maybe. Do you think the crowd against him motivates him though, especially on court?
boncer34
Formerly "Dos23"
Possibly. He won't get as rattled as he looked during the final this year I guess.
Sometimes I think the crowd against him motivates Djokovic during a match. Not to say he wouldn't win otherwise. I think of this year's final against Thiem and back to the Wimbledon final against Federer last year. They were hard matches to watch as a Djokovic fan, with the crowd so strongly against him.
what about the US open?
boncer34
Formerly "Dos23"
What about it?
He never won that either, did he not play in that one enough as well.
boncer34
Formerly "Dos23"
- Moderator
- #1,269
I think no crowd helps the underdog tennis player. Not that it matters as it is a moot point. I can't see the tour restarting until this thing finishes and by then, the crowds will be back.
International travel will be a no-no for a long time and we can't restart a tour when travel is banned into so many places.
International travel will be a no-no for a long time and we can't restart a tour when travel is banned into so many places.
Well I suppose firstly it's about how good and dominant players were taking into account the top players in their era.
When Borg played the top players didn't bother with the Australian Open so that's not really a point. It wasn't considered anywhere near the same status as the other 3 back then.
In an 8 year period he won 6 French and 5 Wimbledon, who else has come close to that? and then retired at 26.
It is interesting that he never won the US Open but would it help your point if he snagged a couple of those and 1 less each of the others?
Back then courts were very different so he won on grass and clay and strangely the one in the middle, the hard courts, he couldn't win.
Who knows why.
But he was a deadset champ and in the conversation for greatest ever with only a couple of others more.
I wouldn't argue if people put Sampras and Federer in the conversation, I just think logically you can knock them out. But I guess it's not a logical thing, so I wouldn't argue but whatever...Borg is in there. He was something else.
He really was.
Superstar status.
Just watch him play;it's something else.
For the most part he beat McEnroe and Connors.
Connors was a champ and a hardarse.
But McEnroe at is best was genius himself. His year in '84 was epic, and Djokovic had a similar at some point, both only lost 3 matches all year. McEnroe was 2 sets up at #French which wasn't his go but lost his nerve against Lendl who was a champ himself, still won Wimbledon and US; but the point is that Borg dominated an absolute alltime great. Well 2 of them.
Federer didn't do that. He didn't dominate his direct contemporaries. He won most of his slams before Nadal and Djokovic were on the scene. Samparas dominated his contemporaries but I would say didn't have the allround game of Federer.
Trying to guage the best ever is to judge them at their best, accross all courts and how they dealt with the their main rivals.
Laver possibly didn't haven't the strength of opposition but he beat them all more often than they beat him and won on an array of surfaces. Surely that's the bar?
Personally at their absolute best across all surfaces and relative to their rivals I had have Djokovic as the best , I'm not a fan, I like Nadal but he's who I'd choose but if someone said bollocks Laver is peerless I couldn't argue. But then Borg had something indefinable.
Vdubs
Hall of Famer
Having watched and played tennis since 1963, this is how I see the ranking situation:-
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic
4. Laver
5. Sampras
6. Borg
Federer's game, when at his peerless best, was sublime. He often had his opponents applauding his strokes. His all-court, all-round game was so good to watch.
He lacks the brute power of Nadal and Djokovic, and those 2 certainly have the capacity to take over #1 and 2 in the near future. These spots must be determined by Slam wins, and impact on the game.
- Banned
- #1,272
I'm not sure that's strictly true. Federer had a top-shelf power game in his own right. For example, who has the biggest serve of those three?
Vdubs
Hall of Famer
Ok, I agree. Fed lacks nothing. His SH BH is a thing of beauty, and against the brutal incessant power of that duo, it can go astray. But I love that he has done it all his career
Last edited:
- Banned
- #1,274
It's basically that Federer also employed timing and variety rather than relying on power alone, which was at odds with the trends threatening to determine the course of the sport before he broke through.
At a time when tennis appeared destined to be split between big-serving one-trick ponies and run-all-day baseline sluggers, Federer turned that on its head and elevated the sport in the process.
Your view is shared by many.
My view is that in men's tennis there was a vacuum at the top after Sampras-Agassi era and some really ordinary players were sharing the number 1 ranking and slams and then Federer came along and made off like a bandit.
Once Nadal came along and then Djokovic stepped up he wasn't the dominant force.
2007 Nadal played Federer in both French and Wimbledon finals.
Nadal was what 20...21? Federer was at his peak.
Nadal beat him easily at the French and put up a decent show at Wimbledon.
The following year he eviscerated him at the French, Federer was almost in tears, and then was heading for an easy 3 sets win at Wimbledon before the rain, on his 'own court'.
He was in his pomp and Nadal was far from his. Nadal just spent most of the time banging up his backhand with topspin and he couldn't cope with it.
Borg, nor Sampras, nor Laver ever had a situation like that in their pomp when a main rival had it over them.
I would say Djokovic at his best...when was that 2010-12 something like that was untouchable. A level beyond anyone else has ever played. I think it was 2011 did he only lose 3 matches all year? A bit like McEnroe in '83 and he had a head to head with Federer/ Nadal of 10-1.
You can go on about the class of his shots all you want but it's a bit like cricket...Brian Lara or Virat Kohli might be able to play an array of shots that even other great players can't but Steve Smith is a better Test match batsman than either. It's irrelevant in the end...it's still a boundary however good it looked and it's still only a winner in tennis.
